 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete/redirect. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Rashism on 15 April 2022. The result of the discussion was Not merged. |
New article edit
10 days ago, during the AfD discussion, I stared a properly arranged article in User:Biophys/Nashism, to show how in must go correctly. Doring the passed 10 days the vigorous defenders of the term failed to put their words in their mouth, so I rounded the text to a suitably final form, and here it is.
Warning: Whe theoretical musings of a certain Fadeicheva will not go: she is nobody, unlike Andrei Illarionov, whose opinions are widely quoted in the media. `'юзырь:mikka 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the criterion. Fadeicheva's article was duly peer-reviewed; whether non-scientific media chooses to quote it or not is irrelevant. Digwuren 06:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are repeating it again: "peer reviewed" Who told you this? As I see, this magazine publishes tons of garbage rants. Also, show me which scientific media quotes her. I suggest you to read about undue weight. Speculative theories of a single man do not matter. NOt ony no one quotes her, the theory she describes is not known by anyone else. She even is not "a small minority". This is not mathhematics when something may be proved true or false. It is not physics where an experiment may be reproduced by peers. In scholastic science the only way of verification is broad discussion. In our case there was none at all. `'юзырь:mikka 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have taken a look at the article, and it seems quite good. Thank you for the work. Digwuren 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems rather strange to go through AfD to delete the original article, which was a stub anyway, only to recreate the article afterwards. Seems like big waste of time. It would have been easier just to simply edit the original article if you were unhappy with the content. Martintg 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was not going to. I wrote it only because the vocal defenders were busy elsewhere and I hate to leave loose ends. I posted for deletion an article (not the topic) written basing on a text published in an obscure journal by a stupid author who had no minimal understanding of basic sociology, see next section. `'Miikka 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- So why didn't you just simply edit the original article if you where not happy with the content? Martintg 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've just explained. What my sentence is unclear? I understand I have poor English, but I hoped not to the degree of total incomprehensiveness. During the AfD I created the user:Biophys/Nashism subpage for this vocal user:Biophys (and pointed to it in the AfD page) to show how it must be properly started. When I came back, in 10 days, I saw Zero progress. So I decided to waste 6 hours more. `'Miikka 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- So why didn't you just simply edit the original article if you where not happy with the content? Martintg 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Term edit
There are real good English words for generic primate of the social group one belongs to. They are "partisanship" and "clannishness". There later has a Russian equivalent, "klanovost". There are also expressions like "group egoism". IMHO the term "nashism" became a buzzword in Russian oress only because of the pun, and there is no reason to look for deeper theoretical meaning in it. `'юзырь:mikka 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neither is not really a good translation. I've tried to explain in the article, with the links to ingroup and outgroup.
- As I pointed out during the AFD, 'nashism' is not merely a pun; it's an attempt to consider the old 'наши' idea as a political ideology. The word is somewhat new because before Stalin, there wasn't enough psychology to analyse the phenomenon suitably, and before Gorbachev, there wasn't enough freedom. The concept, however, is old. Digwuren 09:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just don't wade into origial research and don't write the groupism article. Probably driven by desire to write nasty articles about there pesky Russians, you seem to overlook how old the 'наши' idea is as a "political ideology". Probably comes from troglodytes. But it was definitely among Ancient Greeks with their polises. You are hypnotized by a witty street buzzword picked and exploited by politicians and politologists to make noise and sell themselves as smart and important ones. Good luck. `'Miikka 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I resent the accusation. Support it or take it back. Digwuren 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is not an accusation, it is my observation. You are making so much fuss about nonsense which is not interesting to any serious western kremlinologist. There are quite a few of them who thoroughly dislike Putin, yet no one cares about "nashism". Otherwise by now this article would have been five times as large. If you think that I am mistaken and you are smarter than Brzezinski and Mattock, I am waiting to buy your books to read and learn and write wikipedia articles based on them. `'Miikka 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I resent the accusation. Support it or take it back. Digwuren 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just don't wade into origial research and don't write the groupism article. Probably driven by desire to write nasty articles about there pesky Russians, you seem to overlook how old the 'наши' idea is as a "political ideology". Probably comes from troglodytes. But it was definitely among Ancient Greeks with their polises. You are hypnotized by a witty street buzzword picked and exploited by politicians and politologists to make noise and sell themselves as smart and important ones. Good luck. `'Miikka 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)